- Why are swans white?- Because it was determined by natural selection.

I'm not sure you're listening VMartin. Not all swans are white. Repeating, not all swans are white. There are black ones:

In any event I think the modern university would more likely answer: "Dunno, but that sounds like an interesting project for a graduate student. Let's see if we can get some funding from somewhere."

Given that all variation which has been thoroughly examined to date has been the result of natural evolutionary processes (of which natural selection is one) it would be a bit of a turn up for the books if swans were white (and black, and various other colors) because God did it.

More to the point, let's suppose after several years of hard labor we had some explanation of why swans are white, black, and various other colors, as we now do for lots of other organisms. You would just pipe up with: "Why are crimson rosellas red?". Then another several years of labor. Then "Why are galahs pink?". "Why are sulphur-crested cockatoos white?" and so on.

If you're really that worried about bird coloration, make a bequest to a university to study it.

I'm not sure you're listening VMartin. Not all swans are white. Repeating, not all swans are white. There are black ones:

I have discussed swans already elsewhere. Folks there noticed that swans are also black in Australia. But I would say it plays more in my cards than it supports neodarwinistic veiw. Because if the same species is white or black it is hardly explainable by natural or sexual selection. It is really very curious - (speaking about Australian/Tasmanian/NZ versus Europian/American fauna) that natural selection could lead to striking similarity of placental and marsupial wolf (convergence). The same natural selection would have led in both areas to different and almost opposite coloration of swans.

Quote

More to the point, let's suppose after several years of hard labor we had some explanation of why swans are white, black, and various other colors, as we now do for lots of other organisms. You would just pipe up with: "Why are crimson rosellas red?". Then another several years of labor. Then "Why are galahs pink?". "Why are sulphur-crested cockatoos white?" and so on.

I am almost sure you are unable to explain what's behind coloration of mushrooms or swans (eiter white ones or black ones). It is not necessary to make suppositions what else I will introduce if you exlplain it.

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

I have discussed swans already elsewhere. Folks there noticed that swans are also black in Australia. But I would say it plays more in my cards than it supports neodarwinistic veiw. Because if the same species is white or black it is hardly explainable by natural or sexual selection. It is really very curious - (speaking about Australian/Tasmanian/NZ versus Europian/American fauna) that natural selection could lead to striking similarity of placental and marsupial wolf (convergence). The same natural selection would have led in both areas to different and almost opposite coloration of swans.

VMartin,

European grey wolves are grey (hence the "grey" in the name). Thylacines (tasmanian tigers) were brown with stripes (hence the "tiger").

Trust me, having been to been to both Europe and Australia that the climates, flora and fauna, and geography are quite different in both regions. For instance, it snows in a goodly portion of the white swan's European range, which was covered in glaciers 10,000 years ago. It does not snow in much of Australia, and we don't have glaciers.

I'll repeat, I have no idea why they have the colors they do; that does not imply "god did it". It's a several year research project to work out why white swans are white. If you want to fund the study I'm sure I can find someone to do it for you.

It is really very curious - (speaking about Australian/Tasmanian/NZ versus Europian/American fauna) that natural selection could lead to striking similarity of placental and marsupial wolf (convergence).

The convergence seems only to have influenced the gross morphology needed in common for running terrestrial predators, and we know via biophysics why that sort of thing happens. It is not curious at all that the dictates of physics has an influence on what happens via natural selection.

Beyond that, placental wolf and thylacine differ in the coloration, as Patrick pointed out; in cranial morphology; in dental formula; and in behavior; as well as the obvious difference in reproductive systems.

Now the explanation is that they inhabit "similar types of habitat". I would say that black and white swans also inhabit the same types of habitat (they are the one species) but in this case the habitat excercises different selective pressure to coloration. In the first case the same habitat led to almost same stripe patterns on thylacine/druiker, in the second case the same habitat led to white or black coloration of swans.

Quote

Trust me, having been to been to both Europe and Australia that the climates, flora and fauna, and geography are quite different in both regions. For instance, it snows in a goodly portion of the white swan's European range, which was covered in glaciers 10,000 years ago. It does not snow in much of Australia, and we don't have glaciers.

But swans need liquid water to live on. I

I'll repeat, I have no idea why they have the colors they do; that does not imply "god did it". It's a several year research project to work out why white swans are white. If you want to fund the study I'm sure I can find someone to do it for you.

vvv[/quote]vvv

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Now the explanation is that they inhabit "similar types of habitat". I would say that black and white swans also inhabit the same types of habitat (they are the one species) but in this case the habitat excercises different selective pressure to coloration. In the first case the same habitat led to almost same stripe patterns on thylacine/druiker, in the second case the same habitat led to white or black coloration of swans.

Quote

Trust me, having been to been to both Europe and Australia that the climates, flora and fauna, and geography are quite different in both regions. For instance, it snows in a goodly portion of the white swan's European range, which was covered in glaciers 10,000 years ago. It does not snow in much of Australia, and we don't have glaciers.

But swans need liquid water to live on. Maybe you would like introduce arctic habitat where white coloration may have a cryptic function. Another explanation is that in Europe is/was warmer weather than in Australia and white color has advantage to be not overheated (we know a lot of white mushrooms and I hit on such explanation). So explanation can be different, due winter or hot sun and it is only a matter of belief if you accept such natural selection explanation or not. Obviously phantasy plays in conceiving such explanations greater role than the reality itself.

Quote

I'll repeat, I have no idea why they have the colors they do; that does not imply "god did it". It's a several year research project to work out why white swans are white. If you want to fund the study I'm sure I can find someone to do it for you.

According Adolf Potmann coloration of species is self-representation "die Selbstdarstellung" of species. If true your research couldn't prove ToE as explanation of coloration in predominant cases of animal coloration.

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Perhaps a brief summary of this thread will help point out the futility of "conversing" with VMartin.

He is fond of pointing out that "darwinists" have no explanation for various things. This is a common enough tactic, and confined almost exclusively to those who prefer certainty to uncertainty. When it is pointed out to him that gaps in knowledge are expected and do not mean that a theory is in serious disarray, he ignores it and goes on to another perceived gap.

His fondness for pointing out gaps in our knowledge is exceeded only by his disdain for proposing alternative explanations. Whether this is because he has no alternative explanations, or because he knows that his preferred explanations have less-than-zero experimental support is not clear. This is because he also refuses to answer questions about his mechanistic explanations of anything.

In other words, he is a sniper, moving along and taking potshots but providing only moving targets for his adversaries. Useless in almost every respect.

--------------Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mindHas been obligated from the beginningTo create an ordered universeAs the only possible proof of its own inheritance. - Pattiann Rogers

It is really very curious - (speaking about Australian/Tasmanian/NZ versus Europian/American fauna) that natural selection could lead to striking similarity of placental and marsupial wolf (convergence).

The convergence seems only to have influenced the gross morphology needed in common for running terrestrial predators, and we know via biophysics why that sort of thing happens. It is not curious at all that the dictates of physics has an influence on what happens via natural selection.

Beyond that, placental wolf and thylacine differ in the coloration, as Patrick pointed out; in cranial morphology; in dental formula; and in behavior; as well as the obvious difference in reproductive systems.

I would say that convergence influnced at most the shape of skulls. Placental and marsupial sabre-toothed tigers had very similar skulls. The same is valid for thylacinus/placental wolf. According Dawkins it is not easy to tell them apart. You have to know their dental formulas or to know that there are two holes in the palate bone. At least students at Oxford found it not so easy to tell them apart, I quote Dawkins The Ancestor tale:

Zoology students at Oxford had to identify 100 zoological specimens as part of the final exam. Word soon got around that, if ever a 'dog' skull was given, it was safe to identify it as Thylacinus on the grounds that anything as obvious as a dog skull had to be a catch. Then one year the examiners, to their credit, double bluffed and put in a real dog skull. The easiest way to tell the difference is by the two prominent holes in the palate bone, which are characteristic of marsupials generally.

The question is if such similarities are caused by natural selection or by other (pre-programmed) forces.

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

I honestly believe Martin had no idea that some swans are black. He needs to get out more.

VMartin, please tell us why you think some swans are white, why some swans are black, and why zebras are striped. All you're doing is listing trivia facts.

DO YOU have a solution? Tell us why these things are so. Repeating "Darwinist have not explanations for this things" doesn't make you clever. It makes you a useless boob who hates 'Darwinism' but can't produce anything in its place.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Yeah Martin, pointing out facts that have have not been explained yet, mostly because they have not been studied, only prove that you are unfamiliar with the scientific process.

As everyone told you, unexplained doesn't mean unexplainable. Don't come with another "Darwinism can't explain this or that". We know, probably more than you do, that the evolution of thousands of traits remains unknown. So quit wasting your time with mushrooms and zebras.

In other words, he is a sniper, moving along and taking potshots but providing only moving targets for his adversaries. Useless in almost every respect.

Well said, Dave.

Martin, I tried to have some sort a debate with you, but it proved to be impossible. Simply because you are a coward. Don't think I want to be mean to you. I couldn't care less if you die today or live for a hundred years. That's just what you are. Prove me wrong and post something, anything about your thoughts on biology. Do you accept common descent and speciation? Do you think beneficial mutations happen? Do you have any evidence for your hypothesis (whatever that is) or a way to test it?

According to the quote, Dawkins says that the "easiest" way is to notice the two holes in the palate. He doesn't say a word in the quote about "not easy".

You catch up my words. Maybe it is easy for professor Dawkins and folks here to tell those skulls apart. But obviously it is not easy for Oxford students. Otherwise professor Dawkins wouldn't mentioned it. What he wrote is also this:

Quote

They are easy to tell from a true dog because of the stripes on the back but the skeleton is harder to distinguish.

Maybe "not easy to tell them apart" is totally different from "harder to distinguish", I don't know.

It reminds me to other example professor Dawkins wrote criticising Behe. He wrote about St.Bernardin this:

Quote

Or a heavyset, thick-coated wolf, strong enough to carry a cask of brandy, that thrives in Alpine passes and might be named after one of them, the St. Bernard?

When I pointed out that the whole story with cask of brandy is nonsesse folks here criticised me that professor Dawkins didn't say that the dog has done it, but only that St.Bernard is "able to do it". Obviously professor Dawkins cannot be sure if the dog is able to carry a cask of brandy unless he tried it. He cannot induce from a painting of a St.Bernard having a cask of brandy on his neck that the dog "is strong enough to carry a cask" long journey (or 5 meters only?).

I don't see a point why to adhere so strong to exact professor Dawkins wording. Professor Dawkins (strictly speaking) is not a scientist but more a writer and columnist. It is no need to quote him exactly I suppose. Or is he really so important like Vladimir Iljic Lenin or Karol Marx whose sentences were studied so carrefuly by marxistic exegesists once?

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Martin, we're not talking about Lenin or St. Bernards. No one here is interested in changing the subject.

Quote

You catch up my words. Maybe it is easy for professor Dawkins and folks here to tell those skulls apart. But obviously it is not easy for Oxford students. Otherwise professor Dawkins wouldn't mentioned it.

Martin, you're babbling.

Quote

I would say that black and white swans also inhabit the same types of habitat

Martin, making shit up is not science.

Now, Martin, why don't you tell us now why black swans are black, and why white swans are white? What is YOUR solution?

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Did you read my post about German idealistic morphology? Did you read the German article I give link to? It is something about directed evolution, the idea I fully agree.

Quote

Do you accept common descent and speciation? Do you think beneficial mutations happen? Do you have any evidence for your hypothesis (whatever that is) or a way to test it?

I have as much evidence as darwinists have for proving than man arouse via random mutation from ancient fish.

Common descent is a complicated problem considering Dacque underestanding of evolution as "entelechie of forms", see my previous post on German idealistic morphology. Did you read it or not?

Quote

And again, quit babbling about "Darwinism can't explain..." ???

Why are you so angry that you cann't explain coloration of mushrooms or animals? Do you know how to explain it or not, you noble fearless knight of darwinism? If not do not despair. Just believe that science will be able to prove natural selection behind it. Sometimes in the future. Just believe, you are a fearless knight.

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

A coward. I see. You are here Knights of the Round Darwinian Table. You are here real scientists, knights, Einsteins, warrior for truth and enlightment of mankind.

Grow up, Martin, this infantile tantrum does not constitute answering the question.

Quote

Why are you so angry that you cann't explain coloration of mushrooms or animals?

Why are you so afraid to answer why mushrooms and animals are colored the way they are?

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

I have as much evidence as darwinists have for proving than man arouse via random mutation from ancient fish.

You have as much evidence for WHAT, Martin?

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

I have as much evidence as darwinists have for proving than man arouse via random mutation from ancient fish.

So provide it. You could write thousands or scientific paper and earn a few nobel prices.

Quote

Common descent is a complicated problem considering Dacque underestanding of evolution as "entelechie of forms", see my previous post on German idealistic morphology. Did you read it or not?

Which thread? Let's stick to this one. Search is broken on this board and I don't have the time to read all your previous posts.PS: I don't read german.

Quote

Why are you so angry that you cann't explain coloration of mushrooms or animals?

You're kidding, right? :D Why in the world someone babbling on a random discussion board on how darwinism is wrong, while hundreds of papers that support the theory of evolution are published every months, should drive me angry? Nice way to avoid the question.

I would say that black and white swans also inhabit the same types of habitat

Bollocks.

Patrick, why didn't you quote my previous sentence either? I quoted there that striking similarity of stripes on tasmanian wolf and african zebra druiker is to be explained via "similar types of habitat". Is it also "bollocks" or what? But this time it would be darwinain "bollocks".

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

I have as much evidence as darwinists have for proving than man arouse via random mutation from ancient fish.

So provide it. You could write thousands or scientific paper and earn a few nobel prices.

I have heard about nobel prices for literature, physics, economy etc. Is there any Nobel price for "darwinism"? Who got it?

Quote

Common descent is a complicated problem considering Dacque underestanding of evolution as "entelechie of forms", see my previous post on German idealistic morphology. Did you read it or not?

Which thread? Let's stick to this one. Search is broken on this board and I don't have the time to read all your previous posts.PS: I don't read german.[/quote]

Try latest pages on Frontloading's thread or EvC where I started the thred about it on Biological evolution section. I summarized there main ideas of Dacque, Naef and Troll.

Quote

Why in the world someone babbling on a random discussion board on how darwinism is wrong, while hundreds of papers that support the theory of evolution are published every months, should drive me angry? Nice way to avoid the question.

That's your argument? When something is published it must be right. Once they published in Nature an article that babies faces are similar to those of their fathers, because our predecessors would have killed them otherwise. The Nature was honest enough to publish another article that our predecessor didn't have mirrors.

And do not please confuse darwinism with theory of evolution (ToE). Another theory of evolution is Lamarckism, Nomogenesis or professor John Davison's Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. They are all theories of evolution.

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus